Follow the article's trail of blog references and you get back to the source. It answers your points, in a fashion. For what it's worth:
By now you’re probably wondering how a person wearing one of our contact lenses would be able to focus on an image generated on the surface of the eye. After all, a normal and healthy eye cannot focus on objects that are fewer than 10 centimeters from the corneal surface. The LEDs by themselves merely produce a fuzzy splotch of color in the wearer’s field of vision. Somehow the image must be pushed away from the cornea. One way to do that is to employ an array of even smaller lenses placed on the surface of the contact lens. Arrays of such microlenses have been used in the past to focus lasers and, in photolithography, to draw patterns of light on a photoresist. On a contact lens, each pixel or small group of pixels would be assigned to a microlens placed between the eye and the pixels. Spacing a pixel and a microlens 360 micrometers apart would be enough to push back the virtual image and let the eye focus on it easily. To the wearer, the image would seem to hang in space about half a meter away, depending on the microlens.
Another way to make sharp images is to use a scanning microlaser or an array of microlasers. Laser beams diverge much less than LED light does, so they would produce a sharper image. A kind of actuated mirror would scan the beams from a red, a green, and a blue laser to generate an image. The resolution of the image would be limited primarily by the narrowness of the beams, and the lasers would obviously have to be extremely small, which would be a substantial challenge. However, using lasers would ensure that the image is in focus at all times and eliminate the need for microlenses.
Whether we use LEDs or lasers for our display, the area available for optoelectronics on the surface of the contact is really small: roughly 1.2 millimeters in diameter. The display must also be semitransparent, so that wearers can still see their surroundings. Those are tough but not impossible requirements. The LED chips we’ve built so far are 300 m in diameter, and the light-emitting zone on each chip is a 60-m-wide ring with a radius of 112 m. We’re trying to reduce that by an order of magnitude. Our goal is an array of 3600 10-m-wide pixels spaced 10 m apart.
One other difficulty in putting a display on the eye is keeping it from moving around relative to the pupil. Normal contact lenses that correct for astigmatism are weighted on the bottom to maintain a specific orientation, give or take a few degrees. I figure the same technique could keep a display from tilting (unless the wearer blinked too often!).
FWIW, there's a bit more about it here. They've apparently got prototypes working on rabbits, or something. Not sure what they're showing the rabbits -- "Look! Virtual carrots!" -- but it's a start.
If you follow the trail of blog references, you end up here, which is apparently the blog of one of the researchers. It has far more information. To your particular point: "In recent trials, rabbits wore lenses containing metal circuit structures for 20 minutes at a time with no adverse effects.... We’ve mainly pursued the active approach and have produced lenses that can accommodate an 8-by-8 array of LEDs. For now, active pixels are easier to attach to lenses. But using passive pixels would significantly reduce the contact’s overall power needs—if we can figure out how to make the pixels smaller, higher in contrast, and capable of reacting quickly to external signals."
So it's probably a little bit further along than your teleportation research. Are you using rabbits too?
The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.
Apple holds plenty of hardware patents, like the multi-touch feature of the iPhone.
I know a very gullible guy who paid $50 for a supposed "Colt 45," sight unseen, to a guy on the street. The seller took his cash, handed him one of these and ran.
Thanks, but I was asking a serious question: "How did they rule out the possibility that children who are prone to violence might also be prone to playing more violent video games?"
I did not intend to express skepticism that it was not possible. I was looking for an actual answer, such as "He accounted for it by isolating XYZ and treating ABC as such-and-such, thereby eliminating the effect."
And, I am always skeptical about research. Always. Much of it is right. Some of it is not. Too often the latter is hyped way out of proportion in the media.
Duh, aren't you clever. Actually I did study statistical research methods for more than a single semester, and furthermore it is very possible to make assumptions and mistakes in the research so that you create the illusion of causation when you haven't really found it yet. (Or do you blindly believe all the research you read?)
Someone else posted the preprint copy of the report, which is hopefully more enlightening than the news article, though I have not had time to read it.
You can see the study author's bent in this quote:
"It's now time to move on to a more constructive question like, 'How do we make it easier for parents -- within the limits of culture, society and law -- to provide a healthier childhood for their kids?'" But Anderson knows it will take time for the creation and implementation of effective new policies.
Um... is it the government's job to make parenthood easier? I thought they put the kids in front of the glowing screen in order to give themselves (the parents) a break from parenting.
"These are not huge effects -- not on the order of joining a gang vs. not joining a gang," said Anderson. "But these effects are also not trivial in size. It is one risk factor for future aggression and other sort of negative outcomes. And it's a risk factor that's easy for an individual parent to deal with -- at least, easier than changing most other known risk factors for aggression and violence, such as poverty or one's genetic structure."
The analysis found that violent video game effects are significant in both Eastern and Western cultures, in males and females, and in all age groups. Although there are good theoretical reasons to expect the long-term harmful effects to be higher in younger, pre-teen youths, there was only weak evidence of such age effects.
How did they rule out the possibility that children who are prone to violence might also be prone to playing more violent video games?
I was thinking almost the exact same thing, grammatically speaking...
"In aviation today, technically advanced bongs present a unique paradox. Technically advanced bongs, in theory, have more available safety, and the outcome should be that there are less accidents. But without proper training for their drinkers, they could be less safe than bongs with less available safety. The FAA found that without proper training for the drinkers who use them, technically advanced bongs don't advance safety at all. The reason is that technically advanced bongs present challenges that under-prepared drinkers might not be equipped to handle."
Oddly, "technically advanced airplane" only appears in the technically advanced summary, and not in the technically advanced review itself. Technically.
Um, just to be clear... the article says "the U.S. has remained silent on the issue, as it remains unconvinced of the need for full disclosure. In doing so, it would appear that the U.S. is perhaps the biggest problem since a clear position of support might be enough to persuade the remaining outliers." (emphasis added)
In other words, we haven't said anything. I wish we'd said something in support of transparency, but it is not fair to lump the U.S. in with countries who are actively opposing transparency.
First, the bank ALREADY HAS HIS INFORMATION because of his bank account. You think he somehow signed up for a checking account without filling out contact information? Citibank doesn't hand out accounts on street corners.
Second, the startup apparently has backing from "The Washington Post Company, Mayfield Fund’s Allen Morgan, Xing founder Lars Hinrichs, and Burson-Marsteller’s Don Baer." E.g. people with money and connections. Hardly a mysterious, unknown person.
Third, they didn't say this was a compliance failure. They said it was because of "objectionable content."
Sadly, no, we actually did code animated ASCII by hand for display on terminals (or terminal windows). It was awful... especially at 300 baud, though even at 1200.
There is no need to explicitly support IE6, but don't block it either. Let users use the site as IE6 gives it to them.
I count that in my phrase "continue IE6 compatability." Adding new features might actively break that compatibility; we have to make sure it doesn't, and that the site is still reasonably usable with IE6.
Poor people may be still be running Windows 98. They could download Firefox 2, or some version of Opera, but they may also be running on a dirt-slow 56K connection.
I work with a number of international nonprofits. Tracking data from their sites indicates that IE6 is still in use for 20-25% of their traffic. Admittedly, some of these sites get traffic from poorer countries where the technology is not at par with the U.S., but still... on those sites, we need to continue IE6 compatability.
Otherwise, if there is no filtering, and as you say, it's just about publishing any old thing and saying this might or might not be of interest
I didn't say "any old thing". I think the original article's claim about Windows memory usage was very relevant to a lot of Slashdot readers. It wasn't up to Slashdot editors to decide if Infoworld conclusions were right; it was up to them to decide if Infoworld's conclusions were worthy of discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
You can only see it if you're wearing these contacts...
Follow the article's trail of blog references and you get back to the source. It answers your points, in a fashion. For what it's worth:
FWIW, there's a bit more about it here. They've apparently got prototypes working on rabbits, or something. Not sure what they're showing the rabbits -- "Look! Virtual carrots!" -- but it's a start.
If you follow the trail of blog references, you end up here, which is apparently the blog of one of the researchers. It has far more information. To your particular point: "In recent trials, rabbits wore lenses containing metal circuit structures for 20 minutes at a time with no adverse effects. ... We’ve mainly pursued the active approach and have produced lenses that can accommodate an 8-by-8 array of LEDs. For now, active pixels are easier to attach to lenses. But using passive pixels would significantly reduce the contact’s overall power needs—if we can figure out how to make the pixels smaller, higher in contrast, and capable of reacting quickly to external signals."
So it's probably a little bit further along than your teleportation research. Are you using rabbits too?
From the summary: "steaming video-on-demand services"
Does the new router dry-clean and iron the services, too? Or do they mean "steaming" as in "pile of stuff that my dog just left behind on a cold day"?
What about the patents they bought with Fingerworks?
The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.
Apple holds plenty of hardware patents, like the multi-touch feature of the iPhone.
I would also wonder about false positives on shareware, poorly written apps, custom corporate apps, etc.
I know a very gullible guy who paid $50 for a supposed "Colt 45," sight unseen, to a guy on the street. The seller took his cash, handed him one of these and ran.
I'm trying to picture a penguin with a monocle and a snifter of brandy... it's like Mr. Peanut, but with booze.
They will wait for the UN/USAID/Gates Foundations of the world to send some more.
Where did you read that they were storing cord blood? The article says blood spots.
Thanks, but I was asking a serious question: "How did they rule out the possibility that children who are prone to violence might also be prone to playing more violent video games?"
I did not intend to express skepticism that it was not possible. I was looking for an actual answer, such as "He accounted for it by isolating XYZ and treating ABC as such-and-such, thereby eliminating the effect."
And, I am always skeptical about research. Always. Much of it is right. Some of it is not. Too often the latter is hyped way out of proportion in the media.
Duh, aren't you clever. Actually I did study statistical research methods for more than a single semester, and furthermore it is very possible to make assumptions and mistakes in the research so that you create the illusion of causation when you haven't really found it yet. (Or do you blindly believe all the research you read?)
Someone else posted the preprint copy of the report, which is hopefully more enlightening than the news article, though I have not had time to read it.
You can see the study author's bent in this quote:
"It's now time to move on to a more constructive question like, 'How do we make it easier for parents -- within the limits of culture, society and law -- to provide a healthier childhood for their kids?'" But Anderson knows it will take time for the creation and implementation of effective new policies.
Um... is it the government's job to make parenthood easier? I thought they put the kids in front of the glowing screen in order to give themselves (the parents) a break from parenting.
FTA:
How did they rule out the possibility that children who are prone to violence might also be prone to playing more violent video games?
I was thinking almost the exact same thing, grammatically speaking...
"In aviation today, technically advanced bongs present a unique paradox. Technically advanced bongs, in theory, have more available safety, and the outcome should be that there are less accidents. But without proper training for their drinkers, they could be less safe than bongs with less available safety. The FAA found that without proper training for the drinkers who use them, technically advanced bongs don't advance safety at all. The reason is that technically advanced bongs present challenges that under-prepared drinkers might not be equipped to handle."
Oddly, "technically advanced airplane" only appears in the technically advanced summary, and not in the technically advanced review itself. Technically.
Um, just to be clear... the article says "the U.S. has remained silent on the issue, as it remains unconvinced of the need for full disclosure. In doing so, it would appear that the U.S. is perhaps the biggest problem since a clear position of support might be enough to persuade the remaining outliers." (emphasis added)
In other words, we haven't said anything. I wish we'd said something in support of transparency, but it is not fair to lump the U.S. in with countries who are actively opposing transparency.
First, the bank ALREADY HAS HIS INFORMATION because of his bank account. You think he somehow signed up for a checking account without filling out contact information? Citibank doesn't hand out accounts on street corners.
Second, the startup apparently has backing from "The Washington Post Company, Mayfield Fund’s Allen Morgan, Xing founder Lars Hinrichs, and Burson-Marsteller’s Don Baer." E.g. people with money and connections. Hardly a mysterious, unknown person.
Third, they didn't say this was a compliance failure. They said it was because of "objectionable content."
Sadly, no, we actually did code animated ASCII by hand for display on terminals (or terminal windows). It was awful... especially at 300 baud, though even at 1200.
Bah. I really miss the Internet of the mid-80s, when telnet was king, a UUCP connection was exciting, and animated ASCII was used for streaming.
(waiting for a 70s guy to show up)
There is no need to explicitly support IE6, but don't block it either. Let users use the site as IE6 gives it to them.
I count that in my phrase "continue IE6 compatability." Adding new features might actively break that compatibility; we have to make sure it doesn't, and that the site is still reasonably usable with IE6.
Poor people may be still be running Windows 98. They could download Firefox 2, or some version of Opera, but they may also be running on a dirt-slow 56K connection.
I work with a number of international nonprofits. Tracking data from their sites indicates that IE6 is still in use for 20-25% of their traffic. Admittedly, some of these sites get traffic from poorer countries where the technology is not at par with the U.S., but still... on those sites, we need to continue IE6 compatability.
Otherwise, if there is no filtering, and as you say, it's just about publishing any old thing and saying this might or might not be of interest
I didn't say "any old thing". I think the original article's claim about Windows memory usage was very relevant to a lot of Slashdot readers. It wasn't up to Slashdot editors to decide if Infoworld conclusions were right; it was up to them to decide if Infoworld's conclusions were worthy of discussion.
But we may be talking past each other here.